Hillsborough River Basin 2016 Progress Report · Final 2016 Progress Report for the Hillsborough River Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP), January 2017 Page 8 of 50 . Section 1:

Final 2016 Progress Report for the

Hillsborough River Basin Management Action Plan

Division of Environmental Assessment and Restoration

Florida Department of Environmental Protection

January 2017

2600 Blair Stone Rd. Tallahassee, FL 32399

www.dep.state.fl.us

Final 2016 Progress Report for the Hillsborough River Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP), January 2017

Page 2 of 50

Acknowledgments

This progress report was prepared as part of a statewide watershed management approach to restore and protect Florida's water quality. It was prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with participation from the Hillsborough River Basin stakeholders identified below in Table 1.

Table 1. Hillsborough River Basin stakeholders

Type of Entity Name Responsible Stakeholders Agricultural Producers

City of Plant City City of Tampa

City of Temple Terrace City of Lakeland

Hillsborough County Pasco County Polk County

Responsible Agencies Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Department of Environmental Protection

Florida Department of Health Florida Department of Transportation

Southwest Florida Water Management District Other Interested Stakeholders Citizens

Tampa Bay Estuary Program University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences

For additional information on the watershed management approach in the Hillsborough River Basin, contact:

Anita Nash, Basin Coordinator Florida Department of Environmental Protection Water Quality Restoration Program, Watershed Planning and Coordination Section 2600 Blair Stone Road, Mail Station 3565 Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 Email: Anita Nash Phone: (850) 245–8545

mailto:[email protected]


Page 3 of 50

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 2

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... 6

Section 1: Introduction and Background ................................................................................... 8

Section 2: Activities During the Reporting Period................................................................... 10

2.1 City of Lakeland (COL) ..................................................................................... 10

2.2 City of Plant City (COPC) ................................................................................. 10

2.3 City of Tampa (COT) ......................................................................................... 10

2.4 Hillsborough County .......................................................................................... 10

2.5 Pasco County ....................................................................................................... 10

2.6 Polk County ......................................................................................................... 11

2.7 FDACS ................................................................................................................. 11

2.8 FDOH ................................................................................................................... 15

2.9 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) .............................................. 15

2.10 SWFWMD ........................................................................................................... 15

2.11 TBEP 15

Section 3: Water Quality Evaluation ........................................................................................ 16

3.1 Revised FIB Criteria ........................................................................................... 16

3.2 Water Quality Monitoring ................................................................................. 16

3.3 Fecal Coliform Reductions Since BMAP Adoption ......................................... 17

3.4 Water Quality Data Plots ................................................................................... 18

Appendices ................................................................................................................................... 24

Appendix A: Important Links ....................................................................................... 24

Appendix B: Stakeholder Projects Completed, Ongoing, or Planned During the Reporting Period (November 1, 2015–October 31, 2016) ..................... 25

Appendix C: FDOH Septic System Summary for the Hillsborough River BMAP Area ............................................................................................................ 38

Appendix D: BMAP Water Quality Monitoring Stations ........................................... 49


Page 4 of 50

List of Figures

Figure 1. Hillsborough River BMAP area boundary ...................................................................... 9

Figure 2. Agricultural acreage and BMP enrollment in the Hillsborough River Basin, September 2016 ............................................................................................................ 13

Figure 3. 2003–16 fecal coliform counts in Blackwater Creek .................................................... 19

Figure 4. 2005–16 fecal coliform counts in the New River .......................................................... 20

Figure 5. Fecal coliform counts in Spartman Branch, 2005–16 ................................................... 21

Figure 6. Fecal coliform counts in Baker Creek, 2003–16 ........................................................... 21

Figure 7. Fecal coliform counts in Flint Creek, 2003–16 ............................................................. 22

Figure 8. Fecal coliform counts in the Lower Hillsborough River, 2003–16 ............................... 22

Figure 9. Fecal coliform counts in the Lower Hillsborough River, January 1, 2016–June 30, 2016 ........................................................................................................................ 23

Figure 10. Enterococcus group bacteria counts in the Lower Hillsborough River, 2003–16 ....... 23

Figure C-1. Illustration of a typical OSTDS ................................................................................. 39

Figure C-2. WBID locations in the BMAP study area ................................................................. 40

Figure C-3. Wastewater disposal method for parcels within WBID 1442 in the BMAP study area as of March 3, 2017 ..................................................................................... 41

Figure C-4. Wastewater disposal method for parcels within WBID 1443E in the BMAP study area as of March 3, 2017 ..................................................................................... 42


Figure C-6. Wastewater disposal method for parcels within WBIDs 1522A and 1522C in the BMAP study area as of March 3, 2017 .................................................................. 44


Figure D-1. Monitoring stations in the Hillsborough River Basin ............................................... 50

List of Tables

Table 1. Hillsborough River Basin stakeholders ............................................................................ 2

Table 2. Agricultural acreage in the Hillsborough River Basin as of September 30, 2016 .......... 12

Table 3. BMP enrollment for the Hillsborough River Basin as of September 30, 2016 .............. 12

Table 4. Current frequency of exceedance ................................................................................... 18

Table 5. Frequency of exceedance comparison ............................................................................ 18

Table B-1. Project list ................................................................................................................... 25 Table C-1. Map lookup table for BMAP WBIDs ......................................................................... 39 Table C-2. Summary of number of parcels on different wastewater methods by WBID ............. 46


Page 5 of 50

Table C-3. Percent of OSTDS constructed before or after 1983 and average age of OSTDS from March of 2017 by WBID ....................................................................... 46

Table C-4. New, repair, existing, and abandonment construction permits by year ...................... 47

Table D-1. Water quality monitoring stations .............................................................................. 49


Page 6 of 50

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

BMAP Basin Management Action Plan BMP Best Management Practice cfu Colony-Forming Unit CIPP Cured in Place Pipe COL City of Lakeland COPC City of Plant City COT City of Tampa DEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection E. coli Escherichia coli ERC Environmental Regulation Commission EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EHD Environmental Health Database EPCHC Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FIB Fecal Indicator Bacteria FDACS Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services FDOH Florida Department of Health FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FLWMI FDOH Florida Water Management Inventory F.S. Florida Statutes GIS Geographic Information System gpd Gallons Per Day HCHD Hillsborough County Health Department HRTAT Hillsborough River and Tributaries Assessment Team IDDE Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination I&I Inflow and Infiltration IWR Impaired Surface Waters Rule mL Milliliter MGM Monthly Geometric Mean NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OAWP Office of Agricultural Water Policy OSTDS Onsite Sewage and Treatment Disposal System SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow STORET Storage and Retrieval (Database) SWFWMD Southwest Florida Water Management District TBEP Tampa Bay Estuary Program TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TPTV Ten Percent Threshold Value


Page 7 of 50

UF–IFAS University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture WBID Waterbody Identification WRF Water Reclamation Facility WWTF Wastewater Treatment Facility


Page 8 of 50

Section 1: Introduction and Background

This annual Progress Report summarizes recent activities associated with the seventh year of the Hillsborough River Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) that was adopted in October 2009. Section 2 describes the projects and activities implemented by stakeholders during the reporting period (November 1, 2015, through October 31, 2016) as well as planned projects for the next reporting period (November 1, 2016, through October 31, 2017). Section 3 is an evaluation of water quality data for the monitoring period (September 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016). Appendix A contains important web addresses that are embedded throughout the report. The tables in Appendix B identify stakeholder projects and activities that were completed, continued (i.e., ongoing), or planned during the reporting period. Appendix C contains a Florida Department of Health (FDOH) septic system summary for the Hillsborough River BMAP area. Appendix D contains a list and a map of the BMAP monitoring stations.

In portions of the Hillsborough River Basin, fecal coliform bacteria were identified as the primary pollutant causing impairment. In 2004, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) adopted total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)1 for six of the verified impaired waterbodies in the Hillsborough River Basin: Blackwater Creek (WBID2 1482), New River (WBID 1442), Spartman Branch (WBID 1561), Baker Creek (WBID 1522C), Flint Creek (WBID 1522A), and Lower Hillsborough River (WBID 1443E). The TMDLs that define the required fecal coliform reductions needed for each segment or tributary are available online.

DEP adopted the Hillsborough River BMAP to implement these fecal coliform TMDLs. Figure 1 depicts the BMAP geographic boundaries. The second iteration (five-year period) of the BMAP went into effect in 2015. Through the original 2009 BMAP and the Phase 2 update document, DEP is tracking ongoing and additional efforts to assess current and future strategies.

1 TMDLs are water quality targets for specific pollutants established for impaired waterbodies that do not meet designated uses based on Florida water quality standards. 2 DEP uses the acronym "WBID," derived from the words "waterbody identification," to identify watersheds of tributaries, lakes, estuaries, beaches, and segments of large rivers. The state is divided into approximately 6,600 WBIDs for the purpose of watershed management.

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/bmap.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm


Page 9 of 50

Figure 1. Hillsborough River BMAP area boundary


Page 10 of 50

Section 2: Activities During the Reporting Period

Stakeholders are implementing ongoing maintenance programs and planned projects. DEP and stakeholders continue to work together to identify the sources of fecal indicator bacteria through field investigations and monitoring of source indicator parameters.

Appendix B contains detailed tables of BMAP projects and activities that were completed, continued, or planned during the reporting period. The highlights of activities during the reporting period, organized by stakeholder, are provided below.

2.1 City of Lakeland (COL) The COL Lakes and Stormwater Division continues to promote public awareness through its ongoing public education and outreach program. In 2016, the division launched its newest campaign, the Toby's Water Warriors Program, designed to engage the city's youth in protecting surface waters and waterways. The city continues to receive positive feedback on the campaign and is making strides with residents in promoting the protection of stormwater and lakes/streams.

2.2 City of Plant City (COPC) COPC continues to inspect all of its industrial complexes annually and more often where there is a higher level of activity with the potential for stormwater impacts. COPC continues to monitor its sanitary sewer lift stations so that staff are immediately aware of any conditions that may cause a sanitary sewer overflow (SSO). This monitoring reduces the potential releases of pathogens to the environment.

2.3 City of Tampa (COT) COT has a comprehensive lift station monitoring and notification program to reduce SSOs. The City Council approved funding for five stormwater- and wastewater-related capital improvement projects in 2016. Appendix B describes these projects.

2.4 Hillsborough County In addition to an extensive countywide monitoring network, the county continued quarterly sampling in the Baker Creek watershed as part of the nutrient source tracking project cooperatively funded by the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD). As part of this sampling, the county discovered three potential fecal indicator bacteria (FIB) sources: one septic system was referred to FDOH and two agricultural operations were referred to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS). The failing septic system was remedied and the potential bacteria source eliminated.

2.5 Pasco County Pasco County provided technical assistance to FDACS on contacting, educating, and enrolling horse farms in the New River area and responded to citizen concerns regarding flooding/water


Page 11 of 50

quality issues. The county has a grant application pending with the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP) seeking $4,200 to produce 3,000 calendars to educate citizens on stormwater.

2.6 Polk County Polk County has an extensive countywide tributary monitoring program that includes the upstream reaches of Blackwater Creek. The county continues to collaborate with other stakeholders on potential issues and solutions based on the lessons learned in other waterbodies.

2.7 FDACS 2.7.1 Best Management Practice (BMP) Enrollment

All agricultural producers that are nonpoint sources in the Hillsborough River BMAP area are statutorily required either to implement FDACS-adopted BMPs or to conduct water quality monitoring prescribed by DEP or the SWFWMD that demonstrates compliance with water quality standards (Paragraph 403.067[7][b], Florida Statutes [F.S.]). If these agricultural producers do not either implement BMPs or conduct monitoring that demonstrates compliance with water quality standards, they may be subject to enforcement by DEP or the SWFWMD. Under Paragraph 403.067(7)(c), F.S., the implementation of FDACS-adopted, DEP-verified BMPs in accordance with FDACS rules provides a presumption of compliance with state water quality standards.

BMPs are individual or combined practices determined through research, field testing, and expert review to be the most effective and practicable means for improving water quality, taking into account economic and technological considerations. The primary regulatory authority for establishing agricultural BMPs is divided between the FDACS Florida Forest Service (silviculture BMP program), Division of Aquaculture (Aquaculture Certification Program), and Office of Agricultural Water Policy (OAWP) (for all other agricultural BMP programs).

OAWP BMPs fall into two categories: structural and management. Structural BMPs involve the installation of structures or changes to the land, usually are costlier, and often require cost-share to be economically feasible. They include water control structures, fencing, and tailwater recovery systems, among other things. Management BMPs, such as nutrient and irrigation management, comprise the majority of these practices and often are not readily observable. Nutrient management addresses fertilizer type, amount, placement, and application timing, and includes practices such as soil and tissue testing to determine crop nutrient needs, application methods, and setbacks from water resources. Irrigation management is the maintenance, scheduling, and overall efficiency rating of irrigation systems.

As of September 30, 2016, 12,542 acres of the Hillsborough River Basin were covered by 45 agricultural BMP notices of intent (NOIs) issued by FDACS OAWP (Figure 2). To estimate the actual agricultural acreage in the Hillsborough River Basin covered by the FDACS BMPs,


Page 12 of 50

FDACS used the 2009 SWFWMD agricultural land uses. Per this land use, 6,341 agricultural acres are enrolled in the FDACS BMP Program. This figure equates to 44 % enrollment of agricultural acreage based on the 2009 SWFWMD land use in the Hillsborough River Basin covered by the FDACS BMP Program. Table 2 lists the 2009 SWFWMD agricultural land uses within the Hillsborough River BMAP area and the acreages covered by each land use. Table 3 lists the BMPs, the acreage covered by NOIs, and the agricultural acres enrolled in each BMP program.

Table 2. Agricultural acreage in the Hillsborough River Basin as of September 30, 2016 1 FDACS staff-adjusted acreage for purposes of enrollment based on a review of more recent aerial imagery in the basin and local staff observations. N/A= Not applicable.

2009 SWFWMD Land Use 2009 Acres FDACS-Adjusted

Acres1 Cropland, Pastureland, Rangeland 12,634.96 12,634.96

Row Crops 493.73 493.73 Tree Crops 681.88 681.88

Nurseries and Vineyards 512.25 512.25 Specialty Farms 9.77 9.77

Feeding Operations 59.59 59.59 Other Open Lands – Rural 818.35 N/A

Total 15,211 14,392

Table 3. BMP enrollment for the Hillsborough River Basin as of September 30, 2016

Related FDACS BMP Programs Acreage Enrolled

Related NOIs

2009 SWFWMD Land Use Acres

with NOIs Cow/Calf, Vegetable and Agronomic Crops (Hay) 11,379.15 10 5,559.65

Vegetable/and Agronomic Crops 999.50 23 682.56

Specialty Fruit and Nut, Citrus 41.21 4 8.29

Nurseries 112.34 7 82.52

Equine 10.27 1 7.80

Total 12,542 45 6,341


Page 13 of 50

Figure 2. Agricultural acreage and BMP enrollment in the Hillsborough River Basin, September 2016


Page 14 of 50

2.7.2 Cost-Share Projects and Outreach

During the reporting period, FDACS commenced 10 new cost-share projects within the Hillsborough River BMAP area, at a total cost of $173,045. FDACS administered these projects to enhance water quality and water conservation. The projects included the following:

• $10,606 was expended on watering stations in two different cow/calf operations. Watering stations draw cattle out of creeks and ponds, protecting water resources.

• A variable rate technology sprayer and a hoop sprayer were cost-shared for $54,230 on 2 other properties. These systems help minimize fertilizer and foliar nutrient application and nutrient runoff.

• An acid injection system, which helps a producer regulate soil pH to ensure that plants use more available nutrients, was cost-shared for $15,250.

• A tailwater pond, which helps reduce groundwater withdrawals, was cost-shared for $48,000.

• Another water savings project, totaling $20,462, consisted of conversion from overhead irrigation to drip irrigation on a blueberry farm.

• Other projects included a denitrification system, drain tile, and the creation of an equine wash area, cost-shared for $24,497.

Multiple outreach events were completed during the reporting period. Highlights include the following:

• In November 2015 and July 2016, FDACS gave presentations on the importance of BMP implementation and cost-share availability through FDACS at strawberry grower meetings in Dover, Florida. The combined attendance at these meetings was approximately 110 people.

• In December 2015, FDACS gave similar presentations to the Agriculture Economics Development Committee of Hillsborough County.

• In May 2016, 38 producers from around the state convened in Balm, Florida, for the University of Florida–Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF–IFAS) Horticulture Field Day, where they learned about irrigation research and water conservation BMPs.

• Given that Hillsborough County is home to many equine farms, FDACS hosted meetings in January and April 2016 at the Triple B Riding Club to educate over 60


Page 15 of 50

equine producers on how BMPs benefit their operations and the overall water quality improvements that result from BMP implementation.

• Other BMP equine workshops, presentations, and educational booths were held throughout Pasco and Hillsborough Counties. For example, in September 2016, presentations were given to the Hillsborough Soil and Water Conservation District working group and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) working group in Dover, Florida. Approximately 25 attendees participated and learned about the importance of BMPs and the BMP enrollment program.

2.8 FDOH In 2016, FDOH completed a comprehensive septic system inventory in Hillsborough County. Appendix C summarizes the FDOH inventory for the Hillsborough River BMAP area.

2.9 Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) FDOT continues to support bacteria source identification and elimination as the need arises in response to complaints about illicit activities on its properties. The agency continues to require illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) training for all staff and contractors working in its rights-of-way.

2.10 SWFWMD The SWFWMD continues to support watershed restoration by cooperatively funding projects with local stakeholders that result in nutrient reduction. Many stormwater treatment projects can reduce FIB loads in addition to nutrients.

2.11 TBEP The TBEP continues to manage a comprehensive public education campaign that educates citizens in the Tampa Bay Estuary watershed, including the Hillsborough River BMAP area, on how their actions affect stormwater, which can transport pollutants to Tampa Bay.


Page 16 of 50

Section 3: Water Quality Evaluation

3.1 Revised FIB Criteria In 2015, the Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) approved proposed revisions to Florida's water quality standards that included revised bacteria criteria. DEP adopted the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) criteria for Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria in Class I and III fresh water, and Enterococci in Class III marine water, to replace the existing criteria for fecal coliform bacteria. These new bacterial fecal indicators are based on the same recreational bather illness rate as the fecal coliform criteria, but they correlate better with bather illness than fecal coliforms and are thus more protective. Class II fecal coliform criteria are retained, since the federal and state shellfish harvesting programs continue to use this indicator.

The new criteria include a monthly geometric mean (MGM) and a ten percent threshold value (TPTV). The MGM is based on a minimum of either 5 samples (Class I) or 10 samples (Class III) taken over a 30-day period. Because of sample size, the criteria applicable to the BMAP are TPTV. TPTV is an upper value not to be exceeded in 10 % or more of the samples during an assessment period. E. coli will be used to assess fresh waters and the MGM is 126 colony-forming units (cfu)/100 milliliters (mL) and the TPTV is 410 cfu/100 mL. Enterococci will be used to assess Class III marine waters and the MGM is 35 cfu/100 mL and the TPTV is 130 cfu/100 mL. The waterbodies addressed in this BMAP are Class III freshwater streams, with the exception of the Lower Hillsborough River, which is a Class III marine water.

While the criteria were approved for adoption by the ERC in December 2015 and went into effect for state purposes on February 17, 2016, they will need EPA approval before they go into effect for Clean Water Act purposes (impaired waters assessments and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES] permits). For more information about the criteria, contact Ken Weaver of the DEP Standards Development Section.

To transition to the new state FIB criteria, the BMAP efforts will continue to implement the fecal coliform TMDLs while integrating sampling for E. coli and Enterococci so that the waterbodies can be assessed using the new water quality standards during the next assessment cycle. The E. coli and/or Enterococci data will be used to guide future restoration efforts. In the meantime, high-magnitude fecal coliform exceedances remain a good tool to direct field investigations and management strategies.

3.2 Water Quality Monitoring The Hillsborough River BMAP monitoring plan supports the implementation of the BMAP by providing water quality data and other information that can be used to document status and track trends in fecal coliform levels and other microbial water quality conditions in the six BMAP WBIDs. The information collected through the monitoring plan is used to evaluate progress toward achieving BMAP objectives, to demonstrate progress toward meeting the TMDLs, to facilitate comparisons of water quality in the BMAP watershed before and after the implementation of BMPs, and to provide information to help guide the selection of future BMPs.



Page 17 of 50

The monitoring plan consists of ambient water quality sampling at 10 core stations and approximately 20 supplemental stations. The stations are sampled quarterly, with some sampled more frequently for other programs. The stations are monitored by the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County, Polk County, and Pasco County. These entities upload their data to the DEP Storage and Retrieval (STORET) Database regularly, at least twice a year. Monitoring stations may be moved to different locations, but participants will carry out the same level of effort so that the impairments in the basin can be identified and addressed.

3.3 Fecal Coliform Reductions Since BMAP Adoption DEP determines progress towards meeting the FIB criterion for the six BMAP waterbodies by assessing the frequency with which the criterion for each tributary is exceeded. This approach mirrors the Impaired Surface Waters Rule (IWR) methodology in Chapter 62-303, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The prior Class III IWR criterion was set so that if more than 10 % of the data exceeded 400 cfu/100mL during each verified period, the water was verified as impaired. As E. coli and Enterococci data become available, the frequency of exceedance of the new state criterion will be used in conjunction with the frequency of exceedance of the old state criterion for BMAP progress assessments. This approach will allow a smooth transition and provide the ability to assess progress as datasets of the new FIB parameters grow.

This section includes data from the BMAP monitoring network and other stations that together make up the IWR monitoring network. Table 4 lists each WBID's total number of fecal coliform samples, total number of exceedances, minimum number of exceedances to be considered impaired, and the percent exceedance for the current 7.5-year data period. In order to compare progress each year until the next assessment (Cycle 4), a rolling 7.5-year data period is evaluated. Each year, the oldest 12 months of data are dropped from the data period reviewed the previous year, and the most recent 12 months of data are added to the dataset.

Column 5 in Table 4 shows the minimum number of exceedances needed to place a waterbody on the Verified List with at least a 90 % confidence level. The minimum number of exceedances is compared with the number of exceedances to determine if the IWR criterion is being met. The last column in the table shows each WBID's percent exceedance, which is based on the number of exceedances (Column 4) relative to the total number of data points (Column 3) for the most recent 7.5-year dataset. The tributaries are listed in order of lowest to highest percent exceedance.

Table 5 shows the percent exceedance for each IWR verified period (Cycles 1–3) and the current rolling 7.5-year period. A comparison of the data periods shows that the percent exceedance gradually decreased in Lower Hillsborough River, Baker Creek, New River, and Spartman Branch since the Cycle 2 assessment period. The most recent data period (Column 6) shows a considerable decrease in percent exceedance for Flint Creek and a slight increase in percent exceedance for Blackwater Creek.

http://prodenv.dep.state.fl.us/DearSpa/public/welcome


Page 18 of 50

Table 4. Current frequency of exceedance 1Subsection 62-303.420(2), F.A.C., Tables 1 and 3. 2The current 7.5-year dataset is from January 1, 2009, through June 30, 2016.

WBID Waterbody Name

Total Number

of FIB Data Points

Number of

Exceedances

Minimum Number of Exceedances to

be Considered Impaired1

% Exceedance for Current 7.5-

Year Rolling Period2

1443E Lower Hillsborough River 340 44 42 13

1561 Spartman Branch 35 5 7 14

1522C Baker Creek 74 12 12 16

1522A Flint Creek 178 32 24 18

1482 Blackwater Creek 98 19 15 19

1442 New River 39 11 7 28

Table 5. Frequency of exceedance comparison 1 Data period is January 1, 1996–June 30, 2003. 2 Data period is January 1, 2001–June 30, 2008. 3 Data period is January 1, 2007–June 30, 2014. 4 Data period is January 1, 2009–June 30, 2016.

WBID Waterbody Name

% Exceedance

Cycle 11

% Exceedance

Cycle 22

% Exceedance

Cycle 33

% Exceedance for the Current 7.5-Year Rolling Period4

1443E Lower Hillsborough River 18 22 16 13

1561 Spartman Branch 29 27 23 14 1522C Baker Creek 16 33 18 16 1522A Flint Creek 23 25 38 18 1482 Blackwater Creek 18 25 16 19 1442 New River 43 43 27 28

3.4 Water Quality Data Plots The following data plots depict the fecal coliform data at each BMAP monitoring station in each BMAP WBID and how they compare with the prior state water quality criterion of 400 cfu/100mL, which is represented by the horizontal red line in each of the data plots. BMAP progress assessments, as presented above, are based on the number of exceedances relative to the total number of samples in each WBID during a 7.5-year period, based on the IWR assessment methodology.

This section only includes data from the BMAP monitoring network stations that may be a subset of the IWR monitoring network used for determining impairment. The BMAP station data plots, shown below, help decision makers gain a basic understanding of water quality in the BMAP watersheds, provide a visual way to detect increases or decreases in the magnitude of the monitoring results, and assist in determining seasonal influences on water quality.


Page 19 of 50

3.4.1 Blackwater Creek

As shown in Figure 3, in Blackwater Creek from 2003 through June 30, 2016, periodic spikes over the state criterion of 400 cfu/100mL were observed at Station 21FLHILL143, located in the lower portion of the main artery of Blackwater Creek. This artery experiences frequent flushing and flows continuously most of the year, while flows slow during the dry season. The frequency of exceedance of the state criterion at Station 21FLPOLKBLACKWATER CRK2 remains high. The median value for 2016 (through June 30, 2016) at Station 21FLHILL143 was 50 cfu/100mL, while at Station 21FLPOLKBLACKWATER CRK2, the median value was 6,210 cfu/100mL.

Station 21FLPOLKBLACKWATER CRK2 is in an upper reach of Blackwater Creek that does not receive enough rainfall to keep this site flowing year-round. Therefore, in some months, the location is not sampled. However, the sediment in the broad floodplain of this heavily canopied segment of the creek stays moist most of the year. During rainfall events, disturbances of this moist sediment may, in part, cause spikes in fecal coliform levels as natural bacteria from sediment are released into the water column. Polk County has begun taking E. coli samples at this station that will be described in the next annual report. County staff have investigated nearby areas for potential illicit connections to the natural system. No illicit connections were found recently.

Figure 3. 2003–16 fecal coliform counts in Blackwater Creek

3.4.2 New River

New River flow is intermittent, and therefore puddles of stagnant water in the river are not sampled when it is not flowing. Station 21FLPASC PASCO SITE 15 is north and upstream of the county line between Hillsborough and Pasco Counties. Staff of both counties are working collaboratively to determine if there are sources of bacteria between the 2 stations that may be


Page 20 of 50

elevating the levels at Station 21FLHILL523. Figure 4 shows the intermittent spikes above the prior state criterion of 400 cfu/100mL that occurred between 2005 and June 30, 2016. Investigations will continue to ensure that no illicit connections are contributing to the impairment. The sources are unknown at this time. As a precautionary effort, FDACS and UF–IFAS are focusing BMP educational efforts in this area to inform local producers and livestock owners of the bacteria impairment and how their actions can protect the river's water quality.

Figure 4. 2005–16 fecal coliform counts in the New River

3.4.3 Spartman Branch, Baker Creek, Flint Creek, and Lower Hillsborough River

At Station 533 on Spartman Branch, fecal coliform data results were frequently below 400 cfu/100mL from 2014 to June 30, 2016 (Figure 5). At Station 107 on Baker Creek, fecal coliform data results remained below 400 cfu/100mL during the end of 2015 and first half of 2016 (Figure 6). At Station 148 on Flint Creek, fecal coliform data results remained below 400 cfu/100mL during the end of 2015 and first half of 2016 (Figure 7). Occasional spikes occurred in the Hillsborough River, while the majority of results remained below 400 cfu/100mL during the end of 2015 and first half of 2016 (Figure 8 and Figure 9). Lower Hillsborough River (WBID 1443E), a Class III marine WBID, will be assessed in the future using the new Enterococci criterion. The data for the Lower Hillsborough River BMAP stations currently show frequent exceedances of the new state Enterococci threshold (Figure 10).


Page 21 of 50

Figure 5. Fecal coliform counts in Spartman Branch, 2005–16

Figure 6. Fecal coliform counts in Baker Creek, 2003–16


Page 22 of 50

Figure 7. Fecal coliform counts in Flint Creek, 2003–16

Figure 8. Fecal coliform counts in the Lower Hillsborough River, 2003–16


Page 23 of 50

Figure 9. Fecal coliform counts in the Lower Hillsborough River, January 1, 2016–June 30, 2016

Figure 10. Enterococcus group bacteria counts in the Lower Hillsborough River, 2003–16


Page 24 of 50

Appendices

Appendix A: Important Links The following lists the complete addresses for websites in this document, in the order in which they appear in the text:

• Cover page: DEP website – http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/default.htm

• Acknowledgments: Anita Nash email address – [email protected]

• Section 1: Hillsborough River BMAP and annual Progress Reports – http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/bmap.htm

• Section 1: Hillsborough River TMDLs – http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm

• Section 3: Ken Weaver email address – [email protected]

• Section 3: STORET public access database – http://prodenv.dep.state.fl.us/DearSpa/public/welcome

• Appendix C: FDOH Florida Water Management Inventory (FLWMI) –http://floridahealth.gov/flwmi

• Appendix C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publication, A homeowner's guide to septic systems: – https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/homeowner_guide_long.pdf

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/mainpage/default.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/watersheds/bmap.htm

http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/tmdl/index.htm


http://prodenv.dep.state.fl.us/DearSpa/public/welcome

http://floridahealth.gov/flwmi

https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/homeowner_guide_long.pdf


Page 25 of 50

Appendix B: Stakeholder Projects Completed, Ongoing, or Planned During the Reporting Period (November 1, 2015–October 31, 2016) Updated project information, including new projects, for the reporting period are identified by the red, boldface, italicized font (example). Projects with a project status of ongoing are believed to have occurred during the reporting period and should continue to occur in subsequent years, unless notification is provided to DEP that the project has been discontinued. Additional project information, including a complete list of projects, can be acquired by contacting DEP.

There are no ongoing SWFWMD projects with activities related to the Hillsborough River BMAP. The SWFWMD accepts projects with the potential for nutrient reduction, but is not requesting or tracking any fecal coliform reduction potential. The SWFWMD relies on its cooperating partners to update DEP on any fecal coliform reductions associated with cooperative projects.

Table B-1. Project list

Project Number Project Name Project Description Project Type Project Status

Estimated Cost

Funding Source

Lead Entity/ Project Partner

COL-284 Hillsborough River and Tributaries Assessment

Team (HRTAT)

Continue participation in HRTAT coordination calls and

other related efforts.

Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown COL COL

COL-285 Source Identification Follow Up

Assist DEP in following up on source identification results that indicate human source.

No sources have been identified through COL

investigation efforts.

Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown COL COL

COL-286 Sample Analysis

Monthly monitoring of up to two stations, with adjustments made as needed, and follow up

on high counts per HRTAT protocol. Samples will be

analyzed for both fecal coliform and E. coli. No

appropriate locations have been identified for sampling.

Sampling has not been conducted.

Monitoring Ongoing Unknown COL COL


Page 26 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


COL-288 Tributary Clean Up and

Search for Illicit Connections

Promote community awareness of waterbodies'

health, organize annual community cleanups, and

inspect for illicit connections. Provide FDACS with locations

of bovine access to creeks.

Public Education Ongoing Unknown COL COL

COL-290 Follow-up to 2014 Walk the WBID

COL staff followed up with industrial facilities to discuss

stormwater pollution prevention.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown COL COL

SBF-12

Lake Thonotosassa Diagnostic Assessment

and Water Quality Treatment Project

Evaluate feasibility of implementing stormwater treatment system to treat

mixture of stormwater and highly treated reclaimed water

before discharging into Westside Canal.

Special Studies,

Planning, Monitoring,

and Assessment

Canceled $100,000/yr COPC/ SWFWMD

COPC/ SWFWMD

BWC-20 Plant City Sewer Line Maintenance Program

Maintain and repair over 120 miles of sanitary sewer lines. Program helps to prevent both

infiltration/inflow of groundwater to collection system, and exfiltration of wastewater to ground and

surface water.

Wastewater Infrastructure Management

Ongoing $1,500,000 COPC COPC

BWC-23 Plant City Lift Station Maintenance

Annual maintenance of 50 lift stations.


Ongoing $500,000/yr COPC COPC

BWC-24, SBF-28

Plant City Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) Program

Clean, carry out video inspection of, and grout sanitary sewer lines and

manholes.




Page 27 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


SBF-27, BWC-25 Plant City Grease Management Program

Inspect, monitor, and educate facilities that generate

cooking oil and grease to ensure BMPs are in use and that pretreatment systems are

being managed properly.

Technical Assistance Ongoing $50,000/yr COPC COPC

SBF-29 Plant City Water

Reclamation Facility (WRF) Maintenance

Annual maintenance of WRF and all appurtenances.



SBF-30, BWC-14 Plant City Stormwater Inlet Marking Program

Affix plaques to stormwater inlets that state in English and

Spanish, "DO NOT POLLUTE THE WATER. DUMP NO WASTE. IT'S

THE LAW." Environmental education pamphlets are

distributed to residents in areas where plaques are affixed.

Public Education Ongoing $1,000/yr COPC COPC

SBF-31, BWC-19 Plant City Spill

Prevention/Response Program

Address sanitary sewer overflow and other spill

incidents to prevent introduction of pollutants to

environment.



BWC-21 Plant City Lift Station Security Program

Maintain basic security (fences, gates, locks) for

sanitary sewer lift stations. Currently 30 of 50 stations are

secured in this fashion.



BWC-22, SBF-34

Plant City Lift Station Auxiliary Power Program

Maintain auxiliary power generators at sanitary sewer

lift stations. Currently 21 of 50 stations have permanent onsite

generators; 8 portable generators are also available as

needed




Page 28 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


SBF-35, BWC-46 Plant City WRF Fecal

Coliform Bacteria Reduction Program

Implementation of operational protocol at city WRF to reduce bacteriological contamination

in effluent.



COPC-284 HRTAT Continue participation in

HRTAT coordination calls and other related efforts.

Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown COPC COPC

COPC-285 Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown COPC COPC

COPC-286 Assistance with Sample Analysis

Assistance with BMAP monitoring for fecal coliform,

with adjustments made as needed, and follow up on high counts per HRTAT protocol.

Monitoring Ongoing Unknown COPC COPC

COPC-288 Non-MS4 Tributary

Search for Illicit Connections

Prioritize segments of creeks based on land use and

historical problems. Inspect priority segments annually or more often as needed to look

for illicit connections on banks of tributary.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown COPC COPC

COPC-289 Implement Procedures to

Maintain Stormwater Flow to Tributaries

Procedures to ensure stormwater projects return

water to streams when designing stormwater

treatment and flood prevention and relief projects.


COPC-290 Walk the WBID Follow Up

Address action items identified as result of 2014 Walk the

WBID.


COPC-291 Alleyway Sanitary Sewer Lining Project

Sewer lining for problematic lines in designated alleyways.




Page 29 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


LHR-40 Manhole Rehabilitation Project

City has two contracts for manhole rehabilitation: (1) insertion of fiberglass liner

into existing manhole; and (2) application of calcium aluminate cementitious

structural coating system that is sprayed onto existing walls of manhole. Project locations

are identified routinely.


Ongoing since 2007

Approximately $750,000 annually

COT COT Wastewater Dept.

LHR-45, LHR-36 Street Sweeping Maintenance

Regularly scheduled street sweeping in residential and

business areas with curb and gutter. Residential area

sweeping covers about 1,860 curbed miles. Commercial area covers about 140 curbed miles.

Stormwater Management Ongoing

Funding amount varies

annually

COT Stormwater

Utility, FDOT

COT/FDOT

LHR-56 Cypress Street Outfall

Construction of box culvert at Cypress St. outfall to North Blvd., large junction box at

North Blvd. and Cypress St., and dual box culvert from

North Blvd. to Cass St. with stub-out at Cass St. to serve future stormwater upgrades.

Stormwater Management

Completed Jan. 2016 $10,000,000 COT COT

LHR-59, LHR-61 Box Culvert

Miscellaneous Rehabilitation

Repair major culverts within roadways prior to resurfacing

or rebuilding roads.


Ongoing since 2014

with completion

in 2017

$1,500,000 COT COT

LHR-62 Collection System Repair Contract

Collection system repairs throughout city.


Ongoing since 2008 $1,000,000/yr COT COT Wastewater

Dept.

LHR-63 Cured in Place Pipe (CIPP) Rehabilitation

Pipe rehabilitation throughout city.


Ongoing since 2006 $1,000,000/yr COT COT Wastewater

Dept.


Page 30 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


LHR-67 Mulberry Pump Station Rehabilitation

Pump station rehabilitation on Mulberry Dr. next to river.


Planned with

completion date in 2018

$600,000 COT COT Wastewater Dept.

LHR-68

Pump Station Supervisory Control and

Data Acquisition (SCADA) Improvements

SCADA improvements throughout city.


Ongoing since 2014 $100,000 COT COT Wastewater

Dept.

LHR-69 Louisiana Pump Station Rehabilitation

Pump station rehabilitation on Louisiana Ave. next to river.


Planned with

completion date in

2017–18

$6,000,000 COT COT Wastewater Dept.

LHR-71 Oak Pump Station Replacement

Replace pump station on Oak Ave. next to river.


Planned with

completion date in

2017–18

$300,000

COT Wastewater

Dept./ Developer

COT Wastewater Dept./Developer

LHR-72 Watrous Canal Rehabilitation

Improvement of ditch system to extend useful life of ditch and improve conveyance of storm flows from drainage

basin.


Ongoing with

completion date of

February. 2017

$2,250,000 COT COT

LHR-73 Krause Pump Station Rehabilitation

Pump station rehabilitation located on Ashley Drive downtown next to river


Completed in 2016 $6,000,000 COT

COT Wastewater

Dept.

LHR-74 Rowlett Park Dr. Ditch Stabilization

Emergency project to rebuild eroded drainage ditch and

exposed water pipe at outfall to river.


Completed July 2016 $260,000 COT COT

LHR-75 Ditch Stabilization Project

Project will repair eroded ditch banks and install

stabilization material at six locations in city.

Stormwater Management Planned $1,000,000 COT COT


Page 31 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


LHR-76 Riverside Pipe Relocation

Project will eliminate two direct stormwater pipes to

river and divert flow through existing treatment system

prior to discharge.

Stormwater Management Planned $125,000 COT COT

LHR-77 Perry Ave. Siphon Hydraulic Modeling

Siphon hydraulic modeling along river from Perry Ave. to

downtown.


Ongoing with

completion in 2016

$50,000 COT COT

Wastewater Dept.

COT-284 HRTAT Continue participation in


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown COT COT

COT-285 Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown COT COT

COT-286 Sample Analysis Analyze 12 samples per year for fecal coliform. Monitoring Ongoing Unknown COT COT

COT-288 Inspect and Inventory

Sanitary Sewer Pop-off Sites

Update geographic information system (GIS)

layer to reflect location of all pop-offs to Lower

Hillsborough River; notate which ones have been plugged; inspect plugs


Ongoing Unknown COT COT

COT-290 Walk the WBID Follow Up

Address action items identified as result of 2014 Walk the

WBID.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown COT COT


Page 32 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


PH2-06 Lake and Stream Management Program

Provides education and technical assistance about water quality and natural

system health to waterfront homeowners in unincorporated

Hillsborough County. Contracts with Florida LakeWatch to provide

increased service to lake residents in Hillsborough

County. Funds small water quality projects in cooperation

with residents.

Public Education Ongoing Varies

Hillsborough County

Stormwater Utility

Hillsborough County

Public Works Dept.

BWC-26 Septic System Complaint Response

Respond to septic system complaints.


Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough County

Hillsborough County

PH2-09 Tools for Public

Reporting of Illicit Discharges

Anonymous reporting of pollution via county website.

Public Education Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough

County

Hillsborough County

BWC-30, LHR-30, NR-16

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Database

Maintain database of reported SSOs.


Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough County

EPCHC Water Management

Division

BWC-48, SBF-37 Evaluation of Progress Towards Water Quality

Improvements

Monitoring results are reviewed annually to

determine water quality trends over time. Results are used to

guide further actions as necessary to reach restoration.

Restoration and Water

Quality Improvement

Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough County EPCHC

LHR-27, BWC-28, NR-13, SF-20

Private Pump Station Identification and

Compliance Program

Identify private pump stations in Tampa, Plant City, and Temple Terrace. Establish

compliance inspection program to reduce number of

SSOs from private pump stations.


Ongoing since 2005 $22,200/year Hillsborough

County

EPCHC Water Management

Division


Page 33 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


LHR-33, SBF-24, BWC-32

Bacterial Contamination Complaint Response to Hillsborough County Health Department

(HCHD)

Bacterial contamination complaints received by

EPCHC possibly caused by septic system failure;

complaints forwarded to HCHD for follow-up.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough

County EPCHC

BWC-9, LHR-6, NR-9, SBF-8

Stormwater Ecologist Education Program

Program targets 3rd through 12th grades. Students

participate in critical thinking activities, demonstrations, and

volunteer projects that highlight stormwater pollution

and address pet waste, agricultural waste, septic

systems, and water treatment plant overflow as they relate to

stormwater pollution.

Public Education Ongoing $9,000/year

Hillsborough County

Stormwater Fee

HCPWD/ SWFWMD

HCPWD-284 HRTAT Continue participation in


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough

County HCPWD/ EPCHC

HCPWD-285 Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough

County Hillsborough

County

HCPWD-290 Walk the WBID Follow Up

Address any action items identified as result of 2014

Walk the WBID.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough

County HCPWD

HCPWD-291 Public Education

Operate countywide public education programs and support existing regional

programs.

Public Education Ongoing Unknown Hillsborough

County Hillsborough

County

NR-10

New River and Hillsborough River

Watershed Management Plans in Pasco County

Preparation and implementation of watershed

management plans.

Stormwater Management Ongoing

$1,600,000 (4-year program funding)

Pasco County/

SWFWMD

Pasco County/ SWFWMD


Page 34 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


NR-15 Fecal Coliform Quarterly Monitoring

Quarterly samples were collected at two stations: New River at Creek Rd. (Site 15) and Trout Creek at County

Line Site 5 (TC-0.0). Dates: January 13, April 20, July 20,

and October 14, 2016. New River was dry during January

and April events.

Monitoring Ongoing $6,000

annually for three years

Pasco County Pasco County

PC-284 HRTAT Continue participation in


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown Pasco County Pasco County

PC-285 Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown Pasco County Pasco County

PC-286 Assistance with Sample Analysis

Monitoring for fecal coliform, with adjustments made as

needed, and follow up on high counts per HRTAT protocol.

Monitoring Ongoing Unknown Pasco County Pasco County

PC-288 MS4 Permit Implementation

Continue proactive illicit discharge detection and elimination program and

respond to citizen complaints regarding potential illicit

connections. Continue ongoing public education efforts.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown Pasco County Pasco County

PC-290 Follow up to 2014 Walk the WBID

In October 2016, visually observed monitoring stations in Pasco County (Site 15) and Hillsborough County (Morris

Bridge Rd.) to identify sources of elevated bacteria

levels between these stations. No obvious sources were

identified.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown Pasco County Pasco County


Page 35 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


BWC-34 Public Education

Ongoing annual countywide public health education

program distributed via permit issuance.

Public Education Ongoing $500/yr Polk County Polk County

BWC-39 Drainage Maintenance on Blackwater Creek

Annual removal of debris and snags from Blackwater Creek.

Stormwater Management Ongoing $9,000/yr Polk County Polk County

BWC-40 Water Quality Ambient

Monitoring for Blackwater Creek

Yearly monitoring of water quality in Blackwater Creek.


BWC-41 Illicit Discharge Complaint Investigations

Complaint investigations of NPDES illicit discharges on

Blackwater and Itchepackesassa Creeks.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

BWC-43 Routine Maintenance Erosion Control

Routine erosion control maintenance countywide.


BWC-46 Pet Waste Campaign Study

Provide educational materials and portable pet waste bag

containers at public functions.

Public Education Ongoing $2,000/yr Polk County Polk County

BWC-48 Stormwater Inlet Labeling

Affix "Do Not Dump" decals on stormwater inlets.


BWC-49 SSO Database Maintain database of reported SSOs.


Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

BWC-50 Environmental Programs at Circle B Preserve

Student ecology programs given at Circle B Preserve

Education Center.


BWC-51 Sanitary Sewer Line Maintenance Program

Inspect and repair sanitary sewer lines (1.5 miles in

Blackwater Creek).



BWC-58 Inspection of Stormwater at Industrial Facilities

Stormwater inspections at industrial facilities.


BWC-59 Sanitary Sewer Line I&I Program

Conduct I&I testing on sewer lines (1.5 miles in Blackwater

Creek).



BWC-60 Septic System Complaint Response

Respond to complaints; coordinate with FDOH and

county code enforcement staff.




Page 36 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


POLK COUNTY-284 HRTAT

Continue participation in HRTAT coordination calls and

other related efforts.

Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

POLK COUNTY-285

Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

POLK COUNTY-286

Water Quality Sample Analysis

Quarterly monitoring of Station BLACKWATER

Crk2, with adjustments made as needed, and follow up on

high counts per HRTAT protocol. Samples are analyzed for both fecal coliform and E.

coli.

Monitoring Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

POLK COUNTY-288

Tributary Clean Up and Search for Illicit

Connections

Promote community awareness of waterbodies'

health, and inspect for illicit connections. Provide FDACS

with locations of horse and livestock access to creeks.

Public Education Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

POLK COUNTY-290

Walk the WBID Follow Up

Address action items identified during 2014 Walk the WBID.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown Polk County Polk County

NR-11, SBF-14 FDACS Farm BMP Program

Enroll agricultural producers in FDACS Farm BMP

Program. BMPs Ongoing Unknown FDACS FDACS

FDACS-1 Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown FDACS FDACS

BWC-49 Public Education Septic System Program

Flyers provided with septic system permits.

Public Education Ongoing Unknown Polk County

FDOH Polk County

FDOH

NR-6

Septic System 200-foot Setback for Hillsborough River—Potable Supply

Protection

Implement setback requirement when issuing

septic system permits.

Regulations, Ordinances,

and Guidelines

Ongoing (since 1980s)

$50,000 (annual

countywide program)

Hillsborough County FDOH


SBF-26, BWC-34, LHR-38, NR-19

Public Health Education Program

Annual countywide public health education program

distributed via permit issuance.

Public Education Ongoing $500/yr




Page 37 of 50


Estimated Cost

Funding Source


DOH-100 Source Identification Follow Up


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown FDOH FDOH

DOH-101 HRTAT Continue participation in


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown FDOH FDOH

DOH-102 Florida Water Management Inventory

Identify drinking water source and wastewater

treatment method for all built parcels in BMAP study area. Reporting will consist of GIS maps and summary tables.

Technical Assistance

Ongoing with

completion in 2017

$50,000 FDOH FDOH

LHR-36 Street Sweeping Curb and Bridge Roadway

Sections

Street sweeping throughout Hillsborough River Basin.

Stormwater Management Ongoing Unknown FDOT

FDOT/ City of Tampa/

City of St. Petersburg

LHR-37, BWC-33, NR-18

Public Education Program for Tampa Bay

Regional Planning Council

Provide variety of program components targeting school-

age children, working residents, retirees, and all

those in between. Key element of regional education effort is "Bay Soundings," quarterly

news journal that provides full range of public education and

scientific information on watershed management.

Public Education

Ongoing since 1996 $65,000/year FDOT FDOT

FDOT-01 IDDE Training Mandatory IDDE training for FDOT staff and contractors.


Ongoing since 2014 Unknown FDOT FDOT

TBEP-101 HRTAT Continue participation in


Technical Assistance Ongoing Unknown TBEP TBEP


Page 38 of 50

Appendix C: FDOH Septic System Summary for the Hillsborough River BMAP Area Nonpoint source pollutants from onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS) can have significant impacts on surface water and groundwater quality. Approximately thirty percent of Florida’s population uses an OSTDS as their method of wastewater disposal. In Florida, OSTDS are regulated by FDOH and cover wastewater from establishments that generate domestic sewage up to 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) or commercial strength sewage waste up to 5,000 gpd. A typical OSTDS consists of a septic tank and drain field (Figure C-1).

Table C-1 lists six waterbodies, each with a unique WBID, impaired for fecal coliform in the BMAP area. These WBIDs are distributed throughout Pasco, Hillsborough, and Polk Counties (Figure C-2). In these WBIDs, there are an estimated 35,954 built parcels (Table C-2). Of those built parcels, about 10.8 % (3,869) are connected to an OSTDS, 83.2 % (29,905) are connected to a DEP regulated wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), and 6.1 % (2,179) are unknown. Of those parcels with OSTDS, 1,050 are known and 2,819 are likely to exist. The known and likely data qualifiers were assigned based on factors related to the level of certainty for the source information. The information used comes from the FDOH FLWMI, which is a centralized geographic data map linking each built property in the state with a drinking water source (public water or private domestic well) and wastewater treatment method (central sewer or onsite septic). More information on this data source can be found by visiting http://floridahealth.gov/flwmi. The spatial distributions of built parcels on different wastewater treatment methods in each WBID or WBID aggregate are demonstrated in Figure C-3 through Figure C-7. These figures are organized in such a way that, all spatially-connected BMAP WBIDs are aggregated into one map figure, while BMAP WBIDs not spatially connected to any other BMAP WBIDs are included in separate map figures. Table C-1 is a lookup table showing which WBIDs are included on which map figure.

Further analysis was done by linking the data points with the FDOH Environmental Health Database (EHD). EHD is a statewide web-based permitting database that FDOH uses to keep track of Environmental Health Program information (permits issued, facilities regulated, etc.) EHD has electronic permitting and inspection data for OSTDS covering a period from the mid-1990s onward. Information on the system installation date and type of system installed can be extracted and linked to the FLWMI map.

Table C-3 shows the proportion of permitted OSTDS that were constructed prior to or after 1983. Construction and use standards for OSTDS in Florida began in 1921. A major revision to the standards occurred in 1982 when a separation of 24 inches was required between the bottom of a newly constructed drain field and the estimated seasonal high groundwater table. Research in Florida and elsewhere has shown that OSTDS installed to the 1982 standards effectively reduce the concentration of pathogens found in normal wastewater and that nitrogen levels are reduced as well. Knowing how many OSTDS were installed prior to this rule, and where they are located, could provide information to assist with future BMAP efforts.

http://floridahealth.gov/flwmi


Page 39 of 50

Table C-3 also shows information on the estimated age of systems. This information was assigned to each parcel based on EHD data or from the Florida Department of Revenue for the year the structure was built if EHD data were not available. The average age of all OSTDS in the BMAP study area is 18 years, with those that are known having an average age of 12 years and those that are likely having an average age of 23 years.

Table C-4 breaks out the EHD information from 2011 through 2016 on the permit types such as new construction, system in need of repair, evaluated existing, or abandoned system. This information may be useful to see any trends in new construction and system failures over time. The red points in Figure C-3 through Figure C-7 indicate the total number of repairs that were permitted between 2011 and 2016 within the BMAP study area.

Table C-1. Map lookup table for BMAP WBIDs

WBID Waterbody Name Map Figure 1442 New River Figure C-3

1443E Hillsborough River Figure C-4 1482 Blackwater Creek Figure C-5

1552A Flint Creek Figure C-6 1552C Baker Creek Figure C-6 1561 Spartman Branch Figure C-7

Figure C-1. Illustration of a typical OSTDS Source: EPA: A Homeowner’s Guide to Septic Systems

https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/homeowner_guide_long.pdf


Page 40 of 50

Figure C-2. WBID locations in the BMAP study area


Page 41 of 50

Figure C-3. Wastewater disposal method for parcels within WBID 1442 in the BMAP study area as of March 3, 2017


Page 42 of 50

Figure C-4. Wastewater disposal method for parcels within WBID 1443E in the BMAP study area as of March 3, 2017


Page 43 of 50



Page 44 of 50

Figure C-6. Wastewater disposal method for parcels within WBIDs 1522A and 1522C in the BMAP study area as of March 3, 2017


Page 45 of 50



Page 46 of 50

Table C-2. Summary of number of parcels on different wastewater methods by WBID Note: 'Known' is assigned to parcels where the wastewater is confirmed from the permitting agency, 'Likely' is assigned to parcels where there is some indication of the wastewater disposal method, 'Undetermined' is assigned if two different data sources have equal opposing values, 'Unknown' is assigned for built parcels with no intersecting source information, 'Not Built' is assigned to parcels with no structure that could generate wastewater.

WBIDs Known Septic

Likely Septic

Total Septic

Known Sewer

Likely Sewer

Total Sewer Undetermined Unknown Not Built Total

1422 204 889 1,093 679 3,107 3,786 1 76 1298 6,254

1443E 13 24 37 22,813 231 23,044 0 1,499 1,225 25,805

1482 568 1,086 1,654 510 11 521 0 83 575 2,833

1522A 135 297 432 1 0 1 0 25 246 704

1522C 25 29 54 1 0 1 0 1 43 99

1561 105 494 599 3 2,549 2,552 0 495 544 4190

Total 1,050 2,819 3,869 24,007 5,898 29,905 1 2,179 3,931 39,885

Table C-3. Percent of OSTDS constructed before or after 1983 and average age of OSTDS from March of 2017 by WBID

WBID

Percent of OSTDS Constructed Before 1983

(%)

Percent of OSTDS Constructed after 1983

(%) Age of Known Septic

(Year) Age of Likely Septic

(Year) 1442 27.9 72.1 13.0 22.7

1443E 5.9 94.1 13.8 24.5

1482 22.5 77.5 12.1 29.8

1522A 6.1 93.9 10.7 14.5

1522C 5.6 94.4 9.9 17.9

1561 20. 80. 12.5 28.9

Average 14.8 85.3 12.0 23.1


Page 47 of 50

Table C-4. New, repair, existing, and abandonment construction permits by year Note: The number of systems permits for new, repair, existing, and abandoned OSTDS, and total OSTDS with permits were obtained from the EHD, which stores permit dates. The total number of parcels with OSTDS in the WBID shown in the last column were obtained from the FWMI, which indicates whether an OSTDS is present or absent on a parcel, but does not indicate the OSTDS permit date. Therefore, the values in the last column do not have associated date information and the systems constructed each year is designated as N/A – not applicable. The values in the rows are not intended to be summed across the columns.

WBID Year New OSTDS Repair OSTDS

OSTDS Existing

Abandoned OSTDS

Total with Permits

Total Parcels with OSTDS in WBID

1442 Subtotal 15 8 0 0 23 1093

1442 2011 4 2 0 0 6 N/A

1442 2012 2 2 0 0 4 N/A

1442 2013 2 0 0 2 N/A

1442 2014 6 1 0 0 7 N/A

1442 2015 2 1 0 0 3 N/A

1442 2016 1 0 0 1 N/A

1443E Subtotal 0 1 0 0 1 37

1443E 2011 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1443E 2012 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1443E 2013 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1443E 2014 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1443E 2015 0 1 0 0 1 N/A

1443E 2016 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1482 Subtotal 23 40 4 0 67 1654

1482 2011 13 10 2 0 25 N/A

1482 2012 1 5 1 0 7 N/A

1482 2013 4 5 1 0 10 N/A

1482 2014 3 5 0 0 8 N/A

1482 2015 2 13 0 0 15 N/A

1482 2016 0 2 0 0 2 N/A

1522A Subtotal 17 12 2 31 432


Page 48 of 50

WBID Year New OSTDS Repair OSTDS

OSTDS Existing

Abandoned OSTDS

Total with Permits

Total Parcels with OSTDS in WBID

1522A 2011 6 4 1 0 11 N/A

1522A 2012 4 3 0 0 7 N/A

1522A 2013 2 1 0 0 3 N/A

1522A 2014 3 2 1 0 6 N/A

1522A 2015 2 2 0 0 4 N/A

1522A 2016 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1561 Subtotal 3 13 0 0 16 599

1561 2011 2 2 0 0 4 N/A

1561 2012 0 4 0 0 4 N/A

1561 2013 0 2 0 0 2 N/A

1561 2014 0 2 0 0 2 N/A

1561 2015 0 3 0 0 3 N/A

1561 2016 1 0 0 0 1 N/A

1522C Subtotal 3 1 0 0 4 54

1522C 2011 1 1 0 0 2 N/A

1522C 2012 1 0 0 0 1 N/A

1522C 2013 1 0 0 0 1 N/A

1522C 2014 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1522C 2015 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

1522C 2016 0 0 0 0 0 N/A


Page 49 of 50

Appendix D: BMAP Water Quality Monitoring Stations Table D-1. Water quality monitoring stations

Waterbody Name WBID

Monitoring Entity

Organization ID Station ID

Station Description

Sampling Frequency Class III

Blackwater Creek 1482 EPCHC 21FLHILL 143

Blackwater Creek at SR 39 under railroad

bridge

Quarterly Fresh

Blackwater Creek 1482 Polk

County 21FLPOLK BLACK WATER

CRK2 Blackwater Crk2 Quarterly Fresh

Baker Creek 1522C EPCHC 21FLHILL 107 Baker Creek at Thonotosassa-

Plant City Road Quarterly Fresh

Flint Creek 1522A EPCHC 21FLHILL 148 Flint Creek at

U.S. 301 Bridge eastside

Quarterly Fresh

Lower Hillsborough

River 1443E EPCHC 21FLHILL 152

Lower Hillsborough River at Sligh

Avenue

Quarterly Marine

Lower Hillsborough


Lower Hillsborough

River at Columbus Drive

bridge

Quarterly Marine

Lower Hillsborough


Lower Hillsborough River at Platt

Street

Quarterly Marine

New River 1442 Pasco County 21FLPASC 015 New River at

Creek Road Quarterly Fresh

New River 1442 EPCHC 21FLHILL 523 New River at Morris Bridge

Road Quarterly Fresh

Spartman Branch 1561 EPCHC 21FLHILL 533

Spartman Branch

Beauchamp Road East of North Forbes

Road

Quarterly Fresh


Page 50 of 50

Figure D-1. Monitoring stations in the Hillsborough River Basin

Documents

Hillsborough River Basin 2016 Progress Report · Final 2016 Progress Report for the Hillsborough River Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP), January 2017 Page 8 of 50 . Section 1: